From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Tue Nov 04 2003 - 00:32:02 EST
Hi Walt,
You wrote:
> Let me apologize for use of the word "toy".
> I realize now that few would take it in the
> context that I meant it. So I will explain
> (and then continue to use it for a while).
> I have a laboratory that cost me about $50K
> to construct. It is for exploring applications
> of entangled photos. My friends refer to it
> as my "toy". They all know that it is serious
> to me but it means nothing to them. I do not take
> offense at the use of the word. I do know a
> few who are interested in the field and we
> share in each other's toys. I meant that of
> your work. It is a nice toy and you can have a
> lot of enjoyment with those who share that
> inclination. It means no more to me than
> entangled photons probably mean to you.
Thanks for the apology. I appreciate that kind of spirit. Of course, I have
no problem using the word "toy" when talking about something as trivial as
quantum entanglement. But since you brought it up, I guess I should let you
know my PhD work involved an in-depth study of the problem of measurement in
Quantum Mechanics - you know, the question of what happens when a
measurement is made, the collapse of the state vector, Copenhagen
Interpretation, hidden variables, statistical ensembles and all that. Bell's
Inequality, EPR, quantum entanglement, pure and mixed states, (non)unitary
time evolution - these were my daily bread and butter. So I fully appreciate
your fascination with entangled photons. Sounds like fun.
But I do find it impossible to use a word like "toy" for a fundamental
divine revelation about the structure of Scripture. Why would you do that?
You know I didn't make this up, and you admit that the Bible is inspired. So
if something as obvious and astrounding as the Bible Wheel is found in God's
Word, how can you dismiss it as irrelevant? I just don't get it.
I do understand the point you are trying to make, and agree completely that
all aspects of God's Word are not of equal interest to everybody. I dealt
with this in detail in my response to Jim Armstrong a few days ago. Here's
the link:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200311/0011.html
The frustrating thing is that this truth is so obvious it shouldn't need to
be stated in the first place, let alone repeated.
You said:
> I have tried to read your pages. They
> are not something to which I can easily
> relate. Try my web site at
> http://www.paradoxscientific.com/mainpage.html and
> then go buy a book about entangled photons and we
> can discuss the relevance to God's universe.
> Now there is no reason for you to do that.
> Nor do I see any reason to do what you suggest.
> You ask questions but you have given me no answer.
I have laboured long and hard to make the presentation of the Wheel easy to
understand. Perhaps you could help me. Which pages did you read? What failed
to make sense? I would be absolutely delighted to have this conversation
turn to actual matters of fact about God's Word.
I went to your site. It didn't have any content to speak of. Just a few
brief introductory pages. I don't need to buy a book. I learned the basics
(and then some) in grad school nearly 20 years ago. I'd be happy to chat
about the implications of Bell's inequalities, non-locality and the
relevance of hidden variables if you think it would add to the glory of God.
Blake Nelson asked similar questions about the relevance of the Bible Wheel.
Please check out my answers to him. If you still don't "get it" I'd be happy
to try to answer specific questions.
> I give you another reason. It is because
> geometrical patterns are beautiful to
> some and meaningless to others. It depends
> upon how you think and visualize. I
> am one who nearly flunked descriptive
> geometry in college and cannot relate to
> visual objects or geometrical patterns
> at all. You (naively I think) expect
> people to think like you do in this
> respect. Your patterns are as meaningless to
> me as the exciting properties of entangled
> photons are to many others.
Ok Walt, I will grant (for the sake of argument, though I find it impossible
to believe) that my work may be over your head. But if it really is beyond
your ability to comprehend, why do try to argue against its relevance? Is
that not the height of arrogant ignorance? How does that differ from the
illiterate plumber rejecting Special Relativity? I don't mean to offend, I'm
just following the argument you are presenting. Are you really arguing
against the relevance of my work with no comprehension of its true meaning?
What's up with this?
> You do everything except explain what
> value they add to Christianity. To me
> this boarders on more Bible worship.
> When I am all done, what has it done
> for me in terms of becoming a better
> Christian? I really await an answer to that.
I have answered and reanswered that question. Take a look at my last posts
to Blake Nelson. It answered a lot of these questions again.
Thanks again for your efforts.
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 04 2003 - 00:30:38 EST